Ok so I finally read Watchman, and since I saw the movie too, now people might feel equipped to ask me: what's my take?
Glad you ask.
First, one thing both the book and the movie "get wrong" to some extent is the whole idea and presentation of Watchman himself. In the book, he isn't even so much as mentioned, not that I saw. This is a real missed opportunity. In the movie, they talk about him a bit, but it's not clear what they mean, or even who is meant. The only character who acts in any way like this supposed "Watchman" might be supposed to act is Rorschach. But it's made very clear throughout that he is Rorschach, and that people know him as "Rorschach." He can't be Watchman.
Still, the figure of Watchman looms over the whole movie in a symbolic way. In many ways, he might be said to be the key figure in the whole story. That is why it seems like just such a missed opportunity, one they could have made better use of. If more had been done with the character, it might be possible to make a bigger point about him, or to show how perhaps in many ways, the character of Watchman might be seen as a Christ Figure.
Any students reading this, I am flattered but please do not steal this to use as a book report with your name on it.* That goes the same for any of my posts - please do your own work, not mine!
Another key difference, but this time it's one that the movie definitely got right: the character of Silk Specter ("Silk Spectre" in the British version no doubt). Her outfit is ridiculous. In the movie, though, it seems a little less ridiculous, or maybe they just light it differently. In the drawings, she looks like The Nightie Avenger or something. In the movie she's more like: Night Whore. Not a big step up, but at least somebody you could see kicking your ass under certain circumstances.
Note: for those of you not in the know, I keep saying "book" - but really, it's only a comic book! This really confused me when I went to go get it. I asked the counter person and she pointed me to it, "there it is!" But I said, "no, that's just the comic book. Where's the real book?" I was embarrassed, because it felt like she was trying to say I was looking for a comic book!
But it turns out there is no real book. This was one very confusing and misleading aspect, and one where I think perhaps the publisher dropped the ball. Easy fix: novelization, maybe?
There are a lot of other aspects I want to get into and illustrate the parallels of, but I forget, so you can definitely look forward to a part 2 of this!
Good movie! Go see it!
Glad you ask.
First, one thing both the book and the movie "get wrong" to some extent is the whole idea and presentation of Watchman himself. In the book, he isn't even so much as mentioned, not that I saw. This is a real missed opportunity. In the movie, they talk about him a bit, but it's not clear what they mean, or even who is meant. The only character who acts in any way like this supposed "Watchman" might be supposed to act is Rorschach. But it's made very clear throughout that he is Rorschach, and that people know him as "Rorschach." He can't be Watchman.
Still, the figure of Watchman looms over the whole movie in a symbolic way. In many ways, he might be said to be the key figure in the whole story. That is why it seems like just such a missed opportunity, one they could have made better use of. If more had been done with the character, it might be possible to make a bigger point about him, or to show how perhaps in many ways, the character of Watchman might be seen as a Christ Figure.
Any students reading this, I am flattered but please do not steal this to use as a book report with your name on it.* That goes the same for any of my posts - please do your own work, not mine!
Another key difference, but this time it's one that the movie definitely got right: the character of Silk Specter ("Silk Spectre" in the British version no doubt). Her outfit is ridiculous. In the movie, though, it seems a little less ridiculous, or maybe they just light it differently. In the drawings, she looks like The Nightie Avenger or something. In the movie she's more like: Night Whore. Not a big step up, but at least somebody you could see kicking your ass under certain circumstances.
Note: for those of you not in the know, I keep saying "book" - but really, it's only a comic book! This really confused me when I went to go get it. I asked the counter person and she pointed me to it, "there it is!" But I said, "no, that's just the comic book. Where's the real book?" I was embarrassed, because it felt like she was trying to say I was looking for a comic book!
But it turns out there is no real book. This was one very confusing and misleading aspect, and one where I think perhaps the publisher dropped the ball. Easy fix: novelization, maybe?
There are a lot of other aspects I want to get into and illustrate the parallels of, but I forget, so you can definitely look forward to a part 2 of this!
Good movie! Go see it!
Comments
I wrote a huge article about this on my nerd blog.
http://www.babyloveszombies.com/2010/02/watchmen-20-differences-between-movie.html
I'm a big fan.
I really must apologize for this post! When the movie came out, there was a rash of pretty idiotic commentary on it that had me just rolling, and this post was sort of a belated spoof on some of that. Of course, the risk of trying to spoof it is I may have just ended up contributing to it!
I thought the movie did a great job! I did actually read the comic book years ago, and I thought it was incredibly well-done and interesting, but I also thought parts of it were kind of excessive without helping things along. The movie was a bit excessive in parts too, but I thought overall it kept to the spirit of the thing, while streamlining out some of the weird "I really don't get the whole giant squid thing" aspects.
Thanks. I have a huge weakness for the movie and the comic because of how it helped me through times in my life. I'm attached but yeah it's over the top sometimes.
GIANT SQUIDS FOR THE WIN.
You know, Kim, I had no problem with the Giant Squid ending in the book at all. But when I saw the movie, I was really struck by how elegant and tidy a resolution it was. Because they already had a plausible world-ending menace sitting right there! Being increasingly distrusted by the public. They didn't need another one. And not only did the "blame Manhattan for the catastrophe" angle tie so neatly into the whole plot to discredit him, it also ennobled him. Here he was, taking the most horrific slander possible against himself and saying, I'll take that rap because the plot worked. Clearing my name would do worse damage (it also highlit his distance from how any human would react to being framed for such ghastly acts, but to me at least, the distance was ultimately that of nobility). I thought it was a beauty. Usually when a significant plot change is made in a film adaptation - especially to the ending! - it's at the expense of what the heart of the story's trying to do. Here's one such change that I think actually clarifies the heart of the story, brings it into sharper focus.
Yet - I still like the squid ending for the book! On the one hand, the film's ending works better with its sharp storytelling and focus on narrative economy. On the other, the book's ending works better to serve the sprawl and glorious excess of the book's densely-interwoven narrative tapestry. Much of it had to be cut from the movie, but so many threads working through the book tie into that island plot and it really does end up earning its separate payoff.
Both endings work better - each for its respective medium!